Sex Differences in Work Experiences and Work Outcomes among Egyptian Managers and Professionals: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research examined potential sex differences in work experiences and work outcomes in a sample of Egyptian managers and professionals. Relatively little research has been undertaken on potential sex differences in human resource management in Egyptian organizations and even less during and following the Arab spring. Data were collected from 121 managerial and professional employees, 77 males and 44 females, using anonymously completed questionnaires. Respondents were relatively young, had university educations, had short job and organizational tenures, and held lower level -management jobs. All measures employed here had been used and validated previously by other researchers. Work experiences included supervisor empowerment behaviors and levels of personal empowerment. Work and well-being outcomes included job satisfaction, organizational commitment, work engagement, exhibiting voice behaviors, workplace learning opportunities, intent to quit and employee health symptoms. Significant sex differences were present on most personal demographic and work situation characteristics: men were at higher organizational levels, earned more money, were older and had longer organizational tenures, among others. There were fewer significant sex differences on work experiences and work outcomes. When differences were observed here, women indicated less positive responses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".